Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Approx price difference between Intel & AMD systems

Last response: in Systems
Share
September 18, 2004 8:15:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
equivalent AMD system"?










'
September 18, 2004 8:15:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

Come on, man............ google that


"Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9568A54DC392731E75@130.133.1.4...
> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
between
> an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
>
> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
>
> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more
than an
> equivalent AMD system"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> '
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 18, 2004 8:15:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

"Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9568A54DC392731E75@130.133.1.4...
> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
> between
> an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
>
> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
>
> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
> equivalent AMD system"?
>
>
>

Considering JUST mainboard and processor: At the high end, there is no
difference. In the mid-range (say about 3 - 3.2G or 3000 - 3200+), there is
no significant difference.

HOWEVER, as recently as last month, Athlon 64 mainboards were (on average)
starting around thirty bucks more for name-brand boards with the same
features as similar name-brand boards for Intel P4 chips.

As all other components (RAM, power supply, video card, hard drives, optical
drives, etc.) is identical, you are looking at really NO cost difference to
build either way. And you are looking at really NO performance difference,
either. There are a few gaming benchmarks where the Athlon 64 chips are a
little faster than similarly priced P4 chips. But overall, the majority of
benchmarks slightly favor the P4 chips. But even that's misleading, as the
difference is trivial.

You will get the same "power" either way, for about the same TOTAL PRICE TO
BUILD. However, if you are a bargain hunter, there are some really nice P4
motherboards out right now that are high quality, name-brand and CHEAP. So
if you shop smartly, you might get slightly better bang for buck building P4
at the moment. -Dave
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 18, 2004 8:15:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

Franklin wrote:

> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
> an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
>
> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
>
> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
> equivalent AMD system"?

Depends on what you look at. Socket 939 Athlon 64 and FX CPU's are
pretty expensive. Socket 754 chips are not so pricey. Athlon XP chips
are a serious bargain compared to Prescotts.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 18, 2004 8:28:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc Franklin <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote:
> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
> an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)

> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
> equivalent AMD system"?

Last time I did this, AMD was about 100 Euro cheaper than Intel for the
same power. That was Athlon XPs 2800+ end of last year.

The figures depend strongly on what CPU you want, what mainboard _and_
what kind of memory.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
September 18, 2004 11:50:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

You get a better value with AMD which is good for budget systems.
Intel is the better choice for intense video editing. Given the two
with the same overall processing power, I believe Intel will run
cooler (is that right?).
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 18, 2004 11:50:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Phisherman wrote:
> You get a better value with AMD which is good for budget systems.
> Intel is the better choice for intense video editing. Given the two
> with the same overall processing power, I believe Intel will run
> cooler (is that right?).

Until Prescott, yes. Prescott is an oven.
September 20, 2004 12:24:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:

> "Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:9568A54DC392731E75@130.133.1.4...
> > Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
> > between
> > an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
> >
> > I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
> > (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
> >
> > Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
> > equivalent AMD system"?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Considering JUST mainboard and processor: At the high end, there is no
> difference. In the mid-range (say about 3 - 3.2G or 3000 - 3200+), there is
> no significant difference.

Not quite. When chips that benchmark similarly are considered, there might be
huge differences. For example, for Doom 3, an Athlon 64 3500+($330)
outperforms an Intel Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE at $990 by a large margin.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...

For Business Winstone 2004, an Athlon 64 3200+($183) beats a
Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE($990). an Athlon XP3000+($95) also beats
a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz($220).

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...


>
>
> HOWEVER, as recently as last month, Athlon 64 mainboards were (on average)
> starting around thirty bucks more for name-brand boards with the same
> features as similar name-brand boards for Intel P4 chips.

Socket 939 motherboards will get less expensive as the demand increases.
The new 90 nm Athlon 64 chips need a socket 939 motherboard.

>
>
> As all other components (RAM, power supply, video card, hard drives, optical
> drives, etc.) is identical, you are looking at really NO cost difference to
> build either way. And you are looking at really NO performance difference,
> either.

Not quite.

> There are a few gaming benchmarks where the Athlon 64 chips are a
> little faster

A little faster?

> than similarly priced P4 chips.

For some games it takes a Pentium 4 at triple the price to come close in
performance.

> But overall, the majority of
> benchmarks slightly favor the P4 chips.

LOL! The majority of pc usage is for business applications, not video
editing.

> But even that's misleading, as the
> difference is trivial.

Trivial? If you compare the performance of a $95 Athlon XP3000+ running
business applications and a Celeron 2.7 ghz which is close in price, the
performance diferrence will not be trivial. If you compare the performance
difference of an Athlon 64 3000+($145) to a $151 Pentium 4 2.6 C
running business software, you will see a very large difference.

>
>
> You will get the same "power" either way, for about the same TOTAL PRICE TO
> BUILD.

Not quite. Of course if you average in video editing benchmarks and Dragon
Naturally Speaking benchmarks into the mix, then it will help the P4 look
better, however for the huge number of people who never run those applications,
it doesn't make much sense.

> However, if you are a bargain hunter, there are some really nice P4
> motherboards out right now that are high quality, name-brand and CHEAP.

Motherboards for an Athlon XP are probably even cheaper. The vast majority
of computer usage is for running business applications.

> So
> if you shop smartly, you might get slightly better bang for buck building P4
> at the moment.

LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the games
they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64. Spending
so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard is
silly.


> -Dave
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 20, 2004 2:45:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

"> LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
> save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
> to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
> games
> they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
> Spending
> so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
> is
> silly.

I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
will be slightly faster than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
you look at ALL the benchmarks, and have half a brain, you will conclude
that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=195...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=195...

Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
your old ones. -Dave
September 20, 2004 3:09:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:36:22 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>
>"Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:9568A54DC392731E75@130.133.1.4...
>> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
>> between
>> an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
>>
>> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
>> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
>>
>> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
>> equivalent AMD system"?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Considering JUST mainboard and processor: At the high end, there is no
>difference. In the mid-range (say about 3 - 3.2G or 3000 - 3200+), there is
>no significant difference.
>
>HOWEVER, as recently as last month, Athlon 64 mainboards were (on average)
>starting around thirty bucks more for name-brand boards with the same
>features as similar name-brand boards for Intel P4 chips.
>
>As all other components (RAM, power supply, video card, hard drives, optical
>drives, etc.) is identical, you are looking at really NO cost difference to
>build either way. And you are looking at really NO performance difference,
>either. There are a few gaming benchmarks where the Athlon 64 chips are a
>little faster than similarly priced P4 chips. But overall, the majority of
>benchmarks slightly favor the P4 chips. But even that's misleading, as the
>difference is trivial.
>
>You will get the same "power" either way, for about the same TOTAL PRICE TO
>BUILD. However, if you are a bargain hunter, there are some really nice P4
>motherboards out right now that are high quality, name-brand and CHEAP. So
>if you shop smartly, you might get slightly better bang for buck building P4
>at the moment. -Dave
>
XP2700 £65
AMD64 2800 £82
Intel 2.8 £97


XP3000 £90
AMD64 3000 £93
Intel 3.0 £104


XP3200 £105
AMD64 3200 £120
Intel 3.2 £130



AMD are always cheaper

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/athlon64-300...

AMD has my vote

Harry
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 20, 2004 3:50:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

Don't be an automoton and just "think" that intel is on par with amd
when it comes to a gaming machine. I will use the site you just
quoted that compares intels best (that cost 100's of dollars more)
with amds best and mid levels running Doom 3. If you have half a
brain (which you probably don't since you'll obviously spend 100's
more for a brand with inferior performance) you'll see that amd athlon
64 3400+ has better performance than intel's p4 3.4 extreme edition.
By the way the athlon 64 3400+ can be bought for around $275 on
pricewatch the intel p4 3.4 ee for $989.00 on pricewatch. Also you'll
be able to run 64 bit programs when they come out, instead having to
upgrade like you will with intel. I'm all about performance compared
to cost and right now intel is getting their ass handed to them by
amd.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...

"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message news:<2r88nmF16i5ltU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "> LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
> > save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
> > to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
> > games
> > they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
> > Spending
> > so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
> > is
> > silly.
>
> I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
> be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
> web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
> you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
> will be slightly faster than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
> you look at ALL the benchmarks, and have half a brain, you will conclude
> that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=195...
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=195...
>
> Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
> your old ones. -Dave
September 20, 2004 3:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:

> "> LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
> > save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
> > to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
> > games
> > they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
> > Spending
> > so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
> > is
> > silly.
>
> I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
> be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
> web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
> you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
> will be slightly faster

More than slightly. It might take a Pentium 4 at double or triple the price
to equal it.

> than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
> you look at ALL the benchmarks,

Why should someone do that? Who runs all types of software? A business
user who runs only business software doesn't care how fast a processor
is at video editing.

> and have half a brain, you will conclude
> that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=195...
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=195...
>
> Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
> your old ones. -Dave
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 20, 2004 7:02:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:45:08 -0400, "Dave C."
<mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>
>"> LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
>> save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
>> to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
>> games
>> they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
>> Spending
>> so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
>> is
>> silly.
>
>I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
>be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
>web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
>you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
>will be slightly faster than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
>you look at ALL the benchmarks, and have half a brain, you will conclude
>that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.
>
>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=195...
>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=195...
>
>Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
>your old ones. -Dave
>
>


Nope, the P4 depends on the most current versions of
applications for it's performance points, while practically
nothing has been optimized for A64 yet. Indeed, an XP3000
handily beats a P4 3.2GHz at most software running today.

In other words, to get the performance from a P4, you're not
buying just a P4, you're buying hundreds of $$$ worth of
software too.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 20, 2004 7:55:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

"J Case" <josephcase@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7bcff396.0409201050.125da725@posting.google.com...
> Don't be an automoton and just "think" that intel is on par with amd
> when it comes to a gaming machine.

Who said that? Athlon 64 chips are slightly better for gaming. Intel is
hardly getting their ass handed to them by AMD, though. That is, unless all
you care about is gaming. -Dave
September 20, 2004 8:10:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:

> "J Case" <josephcase@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7bcff396.0409201050.125da725@posting.google.com...
> > Don't be an automoton and just "think" that intel is on par with amd
> > when it comes to a gaming machine.
>
> Who said that? Athlon 64 chips are slightly better for gaming. Intel is
> hardly getting their ass handed to them by AMD, though. That is, unless all
> you care about is gaming. -Dave

Stop the nonsense. Compare chips similar in price and look at the benchmarks.
AMD processors outperform comparably priced Intel processors for gaming,
business applications, mathematical calculations, and many other types of
applications. The Pentium 4 chips excell at running some 32 bit multimedia
software. So what. Those who need to run that type of software will probably
soon be interested in running 64 bit software. Have you seen benchmarks
on how Intel's X86 64 bit processors perform running 64 bit software?

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1
September 20, 2004 8:10:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

AND when THEY (whomever THEY are) are interested, will about the time
the 64bit software market will be ripe. Please test all the unknowns
now, so when I am ready, I'll pick up an Intel 64....


"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:414F3942.7F2A27DF@netscape.net...
>
>
> "Dave C." wrote:
>
> > "J Case" <josephcase@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7bcff396.0409201050.125da725@posting.google.com...
> > > Don't be an automoton and just "think" that intel is on par with
amd
> > > when it comes to a gaming machine.
> >
> > Who said that? Athlon 64 chips are slightly better for gaming.
Intel is
> > hardly getting their ass handed to them by AMD, though. That is,
unless all
> > you care about is gaming. -Dave
>
> Stop the nonsense. Compare chips similar in price and look at the
benchmarks.
> AMD processors outperform comparably priced Intel processors for
gaming,
> business applications, mathematical calculations, and many other
types of
> applications. The Pentium 4 chips excell at running some 32 bit
multimedia
> software. So what. Those who need to run that type of software will
probably
> soon be interested in running 64 bit software. Have you seen
benchmarks
> on how Intel's X86 64 bit processors perform running 64 bit
software?
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 20, 2004 9:13:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

>
> Stop the nonsense. Compare chips similar in price and look at the
> benchmarks.
> AMD processors outperform comparably priced Intel processors for gaming,
> business applications, mathematical calculations, and many other types of
> applications.

OK, according to pricewatch, same price range at the moment would be:

P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or

P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anyobody gives a damn about those chips, as
hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
of their system combined.

So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
has the best bang for buck, at the moment.

Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
TENTHS of a percentage point faster.
So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
one tie.
GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
*CPU* and memory benchmarks

Actually, I'm glad you called me out on this issue. I was previously under
the impression that AMD and Intel were pretty well matched. But on
reviewing the benchmarks again, I'd have to conclude that AMD is only a good
idea if you plan to do nothing but DX8 gaming with your computer.
Otherwise, you are wasting your money buying an AMD chip.

Again, even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave 9/20/04

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

Yeah, I know you are going to blast Tom's Hardware. It's funny that their
benchmarks agree with tests run by all the other hardware guide web sites,
though . . . including anandtech.
September 21, 2004 2:21:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:

> >
> > Stop the nonsense. Compare chips similar in price and look at the
> > benchmarks.
> > AMD processors outperform comparably priced Intel processors for gaming,
> > business applications, mathematical calculations, and many other types of
> > applications.
>
> OK, according to pricewatch, same price range at the moment would be:
>
> P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or

$220 vs $185. not exactly the same.

>
>
> P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

$282 vs $255. A bit closer.

>
>
> Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
> Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anyobody gives a damn about those chips, as
> hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
> of their system combined.

Many gamers buy more expensive processors. If someone spends
$600 on a video card, they can easily spend $300-$600 on a cpu.
Those doing scientific calculations also often tend to buy high
performing processors.

>
>
> So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
> has the best bang for buck, at the moment.
>
> Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster

Wrong!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

>
> Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
> Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
> TENTHS of a percentage point faster.
> So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
> one tie.

Wrong. Two wins for AMD and one tie.

>
> GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Not quite.

>
>
> Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away

What have you been smoking? Even An Athlon XP3000+ beats a
Pentium 4 3.2 ghz running business applications.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

>
> Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away

Not quite. In Content Creation Winstone 2004, an Athlon 64 3000+
beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

>
> Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away
>
> Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
> towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Intel has the lead here with 32 bit software, however with the Athlon 64
one can switch to 64 bit software. Here is an article comparing an Opteron
to a 64 bit Xeon(expensive!) when runnning 64 bit software.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1



>
>
> Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Care to provide some benchmarks?

>
>
> Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
> *CPU* and memory benchmarks

Who buys a computer to run synthetic benchmarks.

>
>
> Actually, I'm glad you called me out on this issue. I was previously under
> the impression that AMD and Intel were pretty well matched. But on
> reviewing the benchmarks again, I'd have to conclude that AMD is only a good
> idea if you plan to do nothing but DX8 gaming with your computer.

LOL! Most PCs are used to run business software. A Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
can't even keep up with an Athlon XP3000+ in Business Winstone 2004.
The Athlon XP is less than half the price of the P4.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

>
> Otherwise, you are wasting your money buying an AMD chip.
>
> Again, even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
> build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
> better bargains to be found.

> Considering that an Intel system will likely
> be cheaper to build

Not quite.

> and WILL perform better

Perhaps for video editing and a few other obscure applications,
but not for what most people are running most of the time.

> on all benchmarks except DX8,
> it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.
>
> Intel is better than AMD, at the moment.

LOL!

> The only way AMD could change that
> would be to drop their prices by 30% or better

LOL!. If Intel drops the P4 3.2 ghz to below the price of an Athlon XP3000+
(around $95) , then it would be competitive for running
business software.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

If Intel drops the Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE to below $255,
then it would be competitive with the Athlon 64 3400+ for those who
like playing Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...

> . -Dave 9/20/04
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html
>
> Yeah, I know you are going to blast Tom's Hardware. It's funny that their
> benchmarks agree with tests run by all the other hardware guide web sites,
> though . . . including anandtech.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 21, 2004 3:13:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:13:50 -0400, "Dave C."
<mdupre@sff.net> wrote:


>Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
>Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
>Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
>TENTHS of a percentage point faster.
>So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
>one tie.
>GAMING OVERALL: TIED

LOL!
If only it were that easy.


>
>Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away

No


>Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
>Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

No

>
>Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
>towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Actually, this is the only place Intel ever makes any
significant ground against AMD.


>
>Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Nope, unless you only count new apps, which raise price of
the P4.


>Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
>*CPU* and memory benchmarks
>
>Actually, I'm glad you called me out on this issue. I was previously under
>the impression that AMD and Intel were pretty well matched. But on
>reviewing the benchmarks again, I'd have to conclude that AMD is only a good
>idea if you plan to do nothing but DX8 gaming with your computer.
>Otherwise, you are wasting your money buying an AMD chip.

You must be a shill.
Only someone using applications proven to be P4 optimized,
that is, spending MORE money for these apps, can expect a P4
to even be competitive with an Athlon, let alone be faster
at anything save a few particular situations like video
editing, and even then, if ignoring older codecs, if
recompression is not done or new codecs purchased or bundled
with editing suite.


>Again, even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
>build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
>better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
>be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
>it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

Sadly, you are biased in favor of Intel.
There ARE good reasons to buy intel, IF you have specific
apps proven to benefit. ASSUMING that performance of a P4
on those specific benchmarked apps will translate into a
performance benefit on DIFFERENT or OLDER apps, is foolish.

Someone who's pocketbook is fattened by ultimate
productivity may easily be able to justify buying newest
applications, but it must be factored into the cost of a P4,
if you expect the performance seen in the benchmark.


>Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
>would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave 9/20/04

Funny that, most everyone else knows that Intel is
scrambling to keep up. They can take the market back quite
easily, that is, the share they formerly held, by simply
dropping prices and relying on the perception of their
name-brand "quality", until they have more competitive
products that don't double as space-heaters.

>
>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html
>
>Yeah, I know you are going to blast Tom's Hardware. It's funny that their
>benchmarks agree with tests run by all the other hardware guide web sites,
>though . . . including anandtech.


Actually there is a disturbing trend where reviews simply
assume companies and private users will buy newest versions
of all their software over and over again, even when it
costs hundreds of $$$ (for single user) or many thousands
for a company, even in support alone.

So add up the total cost of the software being benchmarked
in those reviews.. probably over $1000, perhaps much higher,
then what's the total cost for that P4?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 21, 2004 3:13:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:v6nuk012m3g9spom36h87pp4tct7m6voap@4ax.com...
> You must be a shill.
> Only someone using applications proven to be P4 optimized,
> that is, spending MORE money for these apps, can expect a P4
> to even be competitive with an Athlon, let alone be faster
>
> Sadly, you are biased in favor of Intel.


That is really funny, considering THIS is what you responded to:

(I wrote earlier)

"I am a HUGE AMD fan. So it's
incredibly ironic that I should feel compelled to defend Intel against
repetitive, undeserved LIES posted on this ng and others about how AMD chips
are both faster AND cheaper than Intel chips. At any particular point in
time, that might be true, but it hasn't been true for quite a while, and it
isn't true NOW. For anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass, or an
axe to grind . . ."

Get thee your head out of your ass and learn to read. Benchmarks don't lie.
Pricewatch doesn't lie. I'm not biased in favor of Intel. I'm INCLINED to
be biased in favor of AMD. I can't read the unbiased numbers that ALL the
hardware-oriented web sites agree with and then conclude that AMD is a good
buy, at the moment. That is, unless I just wanted to bash Intel and truth
be damned. Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. That's from the mouth
of a huge AMD fan. I hope AMD does something to change this soon, and I'm
optimistic that they will, but at the moment, Intel chips are clearly a
better deal. -Dave
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 21, 2004 3:13:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message


"Paul Otellini, Intel's president, admitted to reporters at the Intel
Developers Forum, that the company has had "some fumbles" recently and
acknowledged rival Advanced Micro Devices may be slightly ahead in some
technologies. But he also suggested the company is ready to grab key
market opportunities as the next half-billion PC users come online. "


tinyurl.com/6l7w2


Willi
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 21, 2004 6:24:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:32:20 -0400, "Dave C."
<mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:v6nuk012m3g9spom36h87pp4tct7m6voap@4ax.com...
>> You must be a shill.
>> Only someone using applications proven to be P4 optimized,
>> that is, spending MORE money for these apps, can expect a P4
>> to even be competitive with an Athlon, let alone be faster
>>
>> Sadly, you are biased in favor of Intel.
>
>
>That is really funny, considering THIS is what you responded to:
>
>(I wrote earlier)
>
>"I am a HUGE AMD fan. So it's
>incredibly ironic that I should feel compelled to defend Intel against
>repetitive, undeserved LIES posted on this ng and others about how AMD chips
>are both faster AND cheaper than Intel chips. At any particular point in
>time, that might be true, but it hasn't been true for quite a while, and it
>isn't true NOW. For anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass, or an
>axe to grind . . ."

Do you feel that you're clever by adding a preface to your
one-sided argument?

You were not compelled to do anything, you CHOSE to place
all weight of the decision making process on modern apps
without any consideration of what the user, uses.

If we are considering "ultimate performance" at any price,
they by all means, let's all get SMP boxes... whatever our
hearts desire, but realistically, most purchases have some
kind of budget, and quoted prices for a P4 must include all
elements necessary to attain the performance advantage used
to contrast it to an AMD chip.


>Get thee your head out of your ass and learn to read. Benchmarks don't lie.

No, but you omit the truth if claiming anyone should
consider benchmarks of apps/versions they don't use.

>Pricewatch doesn't lie. I'm not biased in favor of Intel. I'm INCLINED to
>be biased in favor of AMD. I can't read the unbiased numbers that ALL the
>hardware-oriented web sites agree with and then conclude that AMD is a good
>buy, at the moment. That is, unless I just wanted to bash Intel and truth
>be damned. Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. That's from the mouth
>of a huge AMD fan. I hope AMD does something to change this soon, and I'm
>optimistic that they will, but at the moment, Intel chips are clearly a
>better deal. -Dave
>

The vast majority of people do not buy new applications when
their current apps work fine, you have no clue which CPU is
better for any use beyond those benchmarked. As I mentioned
previously, if productivity is tied to income, it may be
justifed to buy apps shown to benefit from a P4. As for
everyone else, the total price of a P4's performance is
often NOT the price of the CPU alone.

Claiming a P4 is "better" while not knowing what it'll be
used for (ignoring your nonsense about DX8), is pointless.

The REALLY funny part is that you cling to new software
benchmarks, but ignore that 64 bit software is around the
next corner.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 21, 2004 10:05:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:21:20 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net>
wrote:


>Many gamers buy more expensive processors. If someone spends
>$600 on a video card, they can easily spend $300-$600 on a cpu.
>Those doing scientific calculations also often tend to buy high
>performing processors.

Here I would have to disagree.

The CPU _IS_ the central processing unit, but that
distinction does not necessarily distinguish it as being
most expensive, or parity with the video card when it comes
to price. Video cards are much more complex than a CPU.

Taking nVidia's 6800 as an example, since it is industry
leading at the moment, the GPU can be quite a bit more
sophisticated, both larger and more powerful, and entire
card includes VRM funtions delegated to a motherboard for
the CPU, and memory that is, based on today's market, worth
in excess of $50 alone. For a gamer, the logical conclusion
is to spend more on the video card than CPU, always. In
retrospect, this has always been the case that a gamer
should never buy the top speed/price CPU unless they already
have the best video card available (unless their monitor is
horrible and can only allow low resolutions).
!